Jump to content

LGBTQ Rights in our time


Lunar Origins

Recommended Posts

The debate wouldn't be whiny or long. At this point its just ignorance to be against it. End of debate. 

 

Also once you start getting a law passed in the high teens amount of states that's when a national law can be passed. Lets not forget only 11 states gave women full voting rights before the 19th amendment. So you really don't need a majority of states to agree for a national law to be passed. Just a concrete group of them. Its something refereed to as Innovation Federalism. Where one state tries something, In this case equal marriage laws. It works so other states with similar ideals try it as well. If you get enough states that are alike to agree upon it , It has a very good chance as beign passed as a national law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate wouldn't be whiny or long. At this point its just ignorance to be against it. End of debate. 

SOoooooooo wrong. Its not ignorance. Why should people who are not married by the definition of marriage get marriage benefits? The concept is stupid. Nothing against Gays and Lesbians and the whole lot, with the exception of Justin Bieber, but they should not get benefits and government rights that people who are actually following the definition of marriage get.

Also once you start getting a law passed in the high teens amount of states that's when a national law can be passed. Lets not forget only 11 states gave women full voting rights before the 19th amendment. So you really don't need a majority of states to agree for a national law to be passed. Just a concrete group of them. Its something refereed to as Innovation Federalism.

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOoooooooo wrong. Its not ignorance. Why should people who are not married by the definition of marriage get marriage benefits? The concept is stupid. Nothing against Gays and Lesbians and the whole lot, with the exception of Justin Bieber, but they should not get benefits and government rights that people who are actually following the definition of marriage get.

Good point.

 

Definitions can be changed, for nothing in this world is concrete.  History favors progressiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally feel like the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all

 

All the money saved would go towards people raising children, since that is the reason we recognize marriage in the first place, to establish some sort of family unit

 

Seeing as family units now widely exist without marriage occurring, we should simply give tax-breaks/other perks to people raising children. This way all communities that wish to be together can in their own way whilst religious people get to keep the "sanctity of marriage" as it is now back to what it was before, a religious/personal ceremony and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...